Development of the American Wine Industry to 1960 - ACS Publications

1 D e v e l o p m e n t o f the A m e r i c a n W i n e I n d u s t r y to 1 9 6 0 1

Downloaded by 209.89.57.198 on October 27, 2015 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: March 25, 1981 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1981-0145.ch001

MAYNARD A. AMERINE University of California, Davis, CA 95616, and Wine Institute, 165 Post Street, San Francisco, CA 94108 the European settlers established their colonies along the Atlantic When seaboard, they almost immediately turned their attention to harvesting

native grapes and producing wine. Adams (1) credits the French Huguenots with making thefirstwines from the native Scuppernong grapes, sometime between 1562 and 1564 at Jacksonville, Florida. He also reports the Jamestown settlers made wine in Virginia in 1609 (1608 according to Wagner, 2) and the Mayflower Pilgrims at Plymouth in 1623. Presumably, these early wines were madefromgrapes that the settlers found growing wild. Early Experiments East of the Rocky Mountains Various incentives were offered to encourage winemaking: European vines (Vitis vinifera) and vine dressers were brought to Maryland, the Carolinas, Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc. There are numerous records on importation of vines from Europe before and after the Revolution. Plantings also were made in Georgia, Rhode Island, and New York. As the settlers moved into the Ohio Valley, they repeated their attempts to grow V. vinifera with no greater success. Some plantings of the European grapes succeeded for a time but sooner or later most died. It was not for lack of care or interest. The problems were primarily climatic: excessively cold wintersforcold-sensitive V. vinifera varieties and high humidity during the growing period. The periodic cold winters partially, and sometimes completely, killed the vines. The humid growing seasons fanned the growth of endemic cryptogamic diseases: downy and powdery mildew, anthracnose, black rot, etc. The death of the vine in the South Atlantic states may have been attributable to Pierce's disease, a bacterial disease that we will laterfindin California. Fungicides to control mildew, etc. were still far in the future. Finally, in many areas the native root louse, phylloxera, probably destroyed the susceptible V. vinifera varieties. Current address: P.O. Box 208, St. Helena, CA 94574. 0097-6156/81/0145-0001$06.75/0 ° 1981 American Chemical Society In Wine Production Technology in the United States; Amerine, M.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1981.


2

WINE P R O D U C T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y IN T H E U N I T E D STATES

From the latter part of eighteenth century new varieties of grapes began to appear. Some of these appear to have been domestications of the native American species, V . labrusca and V . rotundifolia. Others of the new varieties appear to be inadvertent nursery crosses of local species and V . vinifera. Concord (the most popular) appears to be primarily V . hbrusca. See Figure 1. Alexander (the first new variety) and Delaware were apparently V . fobrusca Χ V . vinifera crosses. V . rotundifolia was not hybridized but a number of different selections of wild grapes were made. By 1800 there was a great interest in developing the American grape and wine industry. This was encouraged by state and federal agencies as well as by private interests. For example, Thomas Jefferson was a great exponent of wine drinking and encouraged the grape industry, even importing and planting vines in Virginia. Commercial Success. There were local commercial successes with the new varieties, first in Pennsylvania and later in N e w York and elsewhere. The first highly successful large-scale development was in Ohio. This was largely attributable to Nicholas Longworth and his col leagues, who envisaged the Ohio Valley as the Rhineland of America. Their greatest success was with Catawba, another hybrid (though no one knows how much V . labrmca it contains). Largely white table wine was produced and considerable sparkling wine was made. Ohio also soon planted exten sive vineyards along the shores and on some of the islands of Lake Erie.

R. M. Pool

Figure 1. Cluster of concord grapes

In Wine Production Technology in the United States; Amerine, M.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1981.


1.

AMERINE

American Wine Industry to 1960

3

The New York industry (including sparkling wines) dates from the same period. German settlers in Missouri also developed a large commercial grape and wine industry from about the middle of the century. Later smaller commercial ventures appeared in other states: New Jersey, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Tennessee, Virginia, etc. The wines produced were primarily dry table wines. The advantages of the V . labrmca and V . rotundifolia varieties were their resistance to the ubiquitous fungus diseases and to winter killing. To a large extent, the V . labrusca hybrids had similar characteristics. Their disadvantage was their strong flavor, especially of the V . labrusca cultivars and some of its hybrids. These grapes and their wines had what came to be called a "foxy" flavor. The European settlers, accustomed to the milder flavors of the V . vinifera varieties, found it difficult to cultivate a taste for this foxy flavor. Some of the hbrusca hybrids had low resistance to phylloxera. There was some rivalry between the California and the Eastern wine industry as soon as the transcontinental railroad was completed. This competition involved natural sectional commercial rivalry of the new industries and fundamental differences in winemaking practices. Production Practices. Few of the new Eastern grape varieties produced enough sugar in the grapes to make a balanced (11 percent ethanol) wine. This was caused by the naturally low sugar and high acidity in the fruit of many of these varieties, particularly in the cooler areas and in cooler seasons. Therefore, sugar was added to make up for the deficiency. Water, to reduce the high acidity, also was used commonly. The water also reduced the foxy flavor of the native varieties. Neither practice was necessary with V . vinifera varieties in California. Later in the nineteenth century, Eastern bottlers often blended California and Eastern wine. This reduced the strong labrusca and scuppernong flavors and, of course, reduced commercial rivalry. Later, laws permitted use of sugar and water except in California. This difference in practice still exists. The native grapes and their hybrids were generally easy to harvest and crush—at first by feet and later with roller crushers. Open wood tanks were used for red wine fermentations and closed tanks for whites. Eastern grapes are difficult to press because the skins slip from the pulp when pressed. Therefore, with the traditional hydraulic presses, it was difficult to secure a high juice yield. Various expedients were used: rack-and-cloth presses, heating the skins and pulp before pressing, etc. See Figure 2. Little or no cooling was used during fermentation. Sulfur dioxide began to be employed at the end of the nineteenth century, as were pure yeast cultures. Wines were aged in tanks and barrels. Eastern wines are usually, but not always, easier to clarify than California wines. While some wine was bottled for sale, a great deal was sold in bulk to local bottlers or was sold directly to the consumer in barrels (50 gallons) or in demijohns (3-5 gallons).



4

W I N E P R O D U C T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y IN T H E U N I T E D STATES

Taylor Wine Company

Figure 2. Old-fashioned rack-and-cloth press The cool winters made wine storage in the East easier than in California. Thus, the wines were generally less subject to spoilage during fermentation and storage than in California. Also, the market was close at hand, and there was less spoilage and surreptitious diluting during transportation than occurred in California or during shipment from California to the Eastern markets. Clarification was by racking, fining, and filtration. With the general use of water, tartrate stabilization was not a major problem. The cold winters also facilitated precipitation of excess tartrates. Prohibition closed down the Eastern wine industry as quickly and as firmly as it did the California industry. However, the vineyards were partially saved by the increasingly popular grape juice industry, to which Concord was suited admirably. Furthermore, a large amount of grapes were sold to home winemakers, which was legal. Post-Repeal. Following Repeal, many wineries throughout the country were re-established, but by no means all of the pre-Prohibition wineries were reopened. The equipment was similar to that used before Prohibition: roller crushers and crusher-stemmers, sulfur dioxide and pure yeast cultures, etc. In general, larger tanks were used than before Prohibition. Use of pectin-splitting enzymes to facilitate pressing was introduced and used widely. From 1933 to 1960, new and faster filters and bottling equipment and the tank fermentation of sparkling wines were introduced.



1.

AMERINE


5

The new viticultural development was the introduction of new complex V . vinifera interspecific hybrids from France—the so-called French hybrids. These were largely fungus-resistant, but their flavor was less, or not at all, foxy. A number of these hybrids now are planted widely throughout the East: Aurore, Chelois, De Chaunac, Foch, etc. Philip Wagner of Riderwood, Maryland, deserves much of the credit for introducing, propagating, and popularizing these hybrids from Europe (see Chapter 8). New methods for training vines and mechanical harvesting of grapes were introduced after World War II. One other recent development has been a renewed interest in growing V . vinifera east of the Rocky Mountains. This came towards the end of the period under review (1957 to be exact) and will be reviewed more completely in the post-1960 discussion in Chapter 8. By 1960, there was a decreasing wine industry in all of the eastern states, especially in the number of wineries. The most successful large wineries were those who used California wine for blending, especially for dessert wines. See Figure 3. In Missouri and Ohio, the wine industry decreased dramatically after World War II, in spite of their large local markets. No one knows the reasons for this decline, but the ubiquitous Concord must bear part of the blame. It could be made into a dry red wine but the flavor was frighteningly strong. In sweet wines, the flavor also was

Taylor Wine Company

Figure 3. Overhead view of large New York winery


6


strong and addition of considerable sugar was required. However, the high-(added)-sugar Concord "kosher" wine was successful and several wineries still produce it. There was also a small vermouth industry (largely based on California wine). Sparkling wines were produced successfully by a few New York wineries. Sparkling wine production in Missouri and Ohio had nearly ceased by 1960. Probably the competition of low-priced wine from California and Washington was also a factor in the decline.


California Peninou and Greenleaf (3) and Carosso (4) have reviewed the Mission period. When the missionaries came from Baja California to San Diego in 1769, they brought the Mission grape with them, probably by 1770. Its antecedents are not known but the cultivar growing in California is apparently a seedling of some V . vinifera variety. The missions south of Point Conception (San Diego, San Juan Capistrano, San Gabriel, and Santa Barbara) were the first to produce wine. Santa Clara and San Luis Obispo were making wines in 1801. By 1806, Langsdorff, the naturalist, had wine from Mission San Jose just south of San Francisco. From 1800, brandy was made at some of the missions, especially San Fernando and Santa Barbara. See Figure 4. Early Production Practices. The methods of making wine were crude. O n a platform covered with clean hides, the grapes were heaped and, in the age-old fashion, were crushed by tramping feet. However, the Indians so employed are said to have been "well washed, their hair carefully tied up, and their hands covered with cloth to wipe away perspiration." The juice was caught in leather bags that were emptied into tubs or cemented cisterns, where it fermented under the cover of the skins. After fermentation, the wine was kept in sewed-up hides or large earthenware jugs. Since the missions at first had neither bottles nor casks, the wine was not aged properly, spoiled rapidly, and could not be exported easily. At one mission at least, there were better methods employed. Father Jose Maria de Zalvidea, who was in charge of viticulture at San Gabriel, increased the planting of vines until by 1830 this mission had 163,000 vines, three wine presses and eight stills. They made between 400 and 600 barrels of wine and 200 barrels of brandy annually. A Father Duran described the wine as being of four kinds: a dry red "very good for the table," a sweet red with a flavor like that of blackberry juice, which he did not like, and two white wines both of which were "delicious for dessert," one from pure grape juice fermented without the skins being used, a second fermented with some grape brandy. The first of these white wines was primarily altar wine, the other "for any use whatever. " No one knows how the padres, with their faulty equipment and methods, prevented their wines from turning into vinegar. One of the main reasons



1.

AMERINE


7

Wine Institute

Figure 4. Clusters of Mission grapes why the Spanish Californians showed a preference for sweet wines may have been because a sweet vinegary wine is a more palatable wine than a dry sour wine. Their brandy must have been as crude as their wine considering the low-quality wine and the primitive stills. The mission vineyards were not planted with any set distance between the vines and a later California winegrower complained in 1851 that the priests and native Californians planted in small patches without regard to locality or a view to improving the vine. Irrigation was practiced as early as 1793, when Captain Vancouver noted at San Buenaventura, "the grounds were supplied . . . with a few streams, which as occasion required, were conducted to the crop." By 1835, irrigation was general in the southern vineyards. At Mission San Antonia de Padua, in southern Monterey County, the padres there under Buenaventura Sitjar, "the passionate conservator of the garden," dug out a ditch—traces of which can be seen still—to San Antonio Creek three miles away to bring in water. In 1815, under the Spanish regime, prices were fixed by the governor at not more than one dollar per quart for aguardiente or fifty cents for wine in northern California. In the south, the top price was to be seventy-five cents



8


for aguardiente and twenty-five cents for wine. See Peninou and Greenleaf (3). The missions were secularized starting in 1833 and thereafter most of their vineyards were neglected or abandoned. Even so San Gabriel produced wine and brandy for some time after secularization. Early Commercial Developments. Privately owned vineyards were planted in the Los Angeles area at an early date and by 1818 there were 55,000 vines there. Jean Louis Vignes, of Bordeaux, planted vines and made wine commercially, probably the first to do so outside the missions. According to Carosso (4), he also imported some vines from Europe and shipped wines and brandies to other parts of California. William Wolfskill, a Kentuckian, also planted vines in the Los Angeles area and made wine by about 1840. Wine production in California was about 50,000 gallons in 1849 (5). The discovery of gold resulted in a big increase in the population and increased the demand for grapes for eating and for winemaking. By 1853 there were over a thousand acres of vines in the Los Angeles area and most of the California wine was produced in this area. By this time, immigrants from Germany had arrived as well as many French settlers, some of whom planted vines and produced wine. Later, many Italian immigrants arrived and planted vineyards and developed wineries. In southern California, the Anaheim development started in 1857 and finally planted over a thousand acres of grapes in that area. Unfortunately, it was destroyed after 1888 by a mysterious vine disease, now known as Pierce's disease (from a bacterial agent). Between 1856 and 1862, the number of vines in the state increased from 1.5 million to 10.5 million. Vines were planted in many new areas during this period. Wine production on a large scale did not start in northern California until about 1857. The wines were poor because of the ubiquitous use of the Mission grape, primitive methods of crushing, lack of proper cellars, lack of a California plant for producing bottles (the first one started in 1863), untrained winemakers, etc. The only important wine merchants of the period were Kohler and Frohling, who started in Los Angeles and later operated primarily from San Francisco. They exported California wines to eastern United States, Europe, and the Far East. This brings us to Agoston Haraszthy (Figure 5), a Hungarian immigrant, and his impact on the California grape and wine industry. He had planted grapes at San Diego by 1850, but his development of the Buena Vista vineyard and winery at Sonoma in northern California starting in 1857 was his major achievement. H e was also a great protagonist for the California grape and wine industry. H e made an observational trip to Europe in 1861 and from it brought back a large collection of grape varieties. Unfortunately, the vines apparently were distributed poorly, through no fault of his, and did not reach their potential effect in improving the California industry. The Buena Vista



1.

AMERINE


9

Figure 5. Agoston Haraszthy Wine Institute

wines won a number of awards, but the vineyards were planted too closely; the sparkling wine venture failed; and phylloxera arrived, whether from its native areas in eastern United States or from infested areas in Europe is not known. Phylloxera was more devastating at Sonoma than in some other districts. For these and other reasons, the Buena Vista venture soon failed. However, the winery survived and is still in operation. By 1860, there were thirty-two wineries in the state. Los Angeles was the largest producer, followed by Sonoma and Santa Clara. Peninou and Greenleaf (3) note that the wines shipped to the eastern United States arrived spoiled "because of faulty methods used in making i t . " From 1860 on, vineyards were planted increasingly throughout the state but the poor quality of the wine prevented its achieving a reputation or market. Immigrants from many countries as well as from the eastern states were involved in this expansion. Arpad Haraszthy (Agoston's son) wrote a detailed discussion (6) of winemaking in California in 1871. He deplored the ubiquitous Mission and the attempt to make all kinds of wine from it. H e notes that even at this early date, California winemakers were attempting to reduce manual operations. Even then he complained of onerous federal wine regulations. H e also noted widespread production of artificial wines in eastern United States. There is little in his report as to how good the best California wines were in 1871.



10


University Experiments. Eugene Woldemar Hilgard came to the University of California as Professor of Agriculture in 1875. H e was already a prominent soil scientist but he soon took an active interest in the state's struggling and largely unprofitable grape and wine industry. H e wrote a critical pamphlet on the root louse phylloxera as early as 1876. Amerine (6) has evaluated his many contributions to the California grape and wine industry. Hilgard helped lobby through the California legislature a bill that on April 15, 1880, created the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners and instructed the Regents of the University of California to provide instruction and research in viticulture and enology. Both of these provisions of the law had profound and salutary influences on the future California grape and wine industry. See Figure 6. Under Hilgard's direction, the University instituted a broad program of research. Hilgard himself best expressed the objectives of his research: "The plan adopted in this matter is in conformity with my view, expressed in my previous report, and shared by the best vintners in the state, viz: that among the first necessities of the present situation of California wines in the world's market, is the establishment of more definite qualities and brands, resulting from a definite knowledge of the qualities of each of the prominent grape varieties, and of their influence upon the kind and quality of the wine, in blending before, or as the case may be, after fermentation; of the treatment required by each in the cellar, during the time of ripening; and finally, of the differences caused by difference of location, climate, etc. as well as by different treatment of the vines themselves." Hilgard (7) summarized his results as follows: "I am convinced that, with the proper understanding and utilization of the data given in this report, much

Figure 6. Professor Eugene W. Hilgard Wine Institute



1.

AMERINE


11

of the uncertainty and haphazard heretofore prevailing will disappear, and that, both in the selection of the grape varieties to be planted, and of the proper blends to be made for particular purposes and types, the data imparted by analyses and the records of vinification will be found of the greatest practical use." The Board of State Viticultural Commissioners, also organized in 1880, was composed of commissioners from various viticultural regions of the State. They and their executive secretary, Charles A. Wetmore, engaged in a wide range of activities to help the California wine industry: public relations in the press and via exhibitions and conventions (the commissioners and the executive secretary were all engaged in grape and wine production), legal battles (largely with the Federal government on taxes and tariffs), education (directed at growers, winemakers, and consumers), translation of pertinent foreign books, etc. But in 1895, the Board was abolished and the University took over its library and its research functions. There is no way of measuring the positive effects that the University and the Board had on the California grape and wine industry. Economically, this was not so evident, as wine prices continued to be low. But the whole tenor of the industry gradually changed. By 1900, there was no doubt that California was entering a new period of better wines and greater confidence in its future as a wine-producing state. Besides phylloxera and grape varieties, Hilgard had many research projects in enology. The most significant was his recommendation of 5.5°-17° C as suitable temperatures for fermenting white table wines. General acceptance in California of this recommendation did not come for seventy-five years. H e was correct that lactic spoilage was often caused by stuck fermentations owing to excessive fermentation temperatures. Hilgard also preached temperance and the importance of wine quality. His famous letter (7) to William Randolph Hearst on what was wrong with the industry was published in the San Francisco Examiner of August 8,1889. In answer to the question "What do you consider the cause of the present depression in the wine market?" he wrote: "Chiefly and fundamentally, the poor quality of the larger part of the wines made, and their immaturity when put on the market. . . . It is high time that the ostrich-like policy of hiding the faults of our winemaking from ourselves were done away with once for a l l . " He then went on to outline how California wines could be improved. First, the winemakers should either learn how to make sound wine or abandon their occupation. Reprehensible practices that he noted as being prevalent were (1) growing excessive crops on valley lands, (2) attempting to handle such a large acreage that each variety is not harvested at the proper time, (3) carelessness in picking, so that moldy, sunburned, or rotten grapes are not excluded, (4) filling the fermentation tanks too high so that there is no space for a protective cover of carbon dioxide, (5) using excessively large fermenting



12


tanks and hot grapes, (6) stirring up a spoiled cap, (7) leaving the wine too long on the pomace, (8) storing the wines in a cold place too soon, thus preventing the secondary fermentation, (9) defective after-treatment of the wine, such as using tanks that are too large, failure to rack often enough, and not excluding air during racking, and (10) selection of grape varieties unsuited to the local climate. Hilgard's own evaluation of his research (7) was: "The result of the laboratory work has been to establish a definite basis for rational wine production in this state, by determining both the cultural and winemaking qualities of all of the more important grape varieties in the several regions where our stations were, or are now, located. It is true that the depression under which the wine interests has labored for a number of years past has prevented viticulturists from availing themselves, to any great extent, of the guiding principles established by us; but it is quite certain that in iuture undertakings of this kind, as well as in any rational winery practice in the immediate future, these facts will have to be taken into definite consideration if the product is to be as good as it can be made under local conditions; as competition as well as critical judging of wines make themselves more plainly felt, such practice must inevitably take precedence of the haphazard, irrational modes of procedure that have so largely prevailed heretofore. Our work in this line represents the largest and most complete systematic investigation of the kind on record thus far in any country." Wetmore's View of Winery Practices. Wetmore (8), of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners, emphasized the importance of planting the proper variety of wine grape in the climatic region where it would produce its best wine. H e also noted that in the period of great experimentation between 1880 and 1885, vines often were planted in the wrong location; in fact, "in many cases large vineyards were separately blocked out for all types from Spain to the Rhine." Wetmore said California has "every condition of soil and climate . . . to compare with Xeres, Malaga, the Mediterranean coast, France, the slopes of the Alps, the valleys of the Rhine and Rhone, and the humid climates on either side of the British channel." The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce hardly could have improved that. H e also noted that California attempted to produce only cheap wines, which yielded little or no profit. H e blamed this on the wine merchants. H e found it necessary to describe, as best he could in 1894, the methods of producing the classic types of European wines so that California producers would know the types to "shoot for. " H e noted the "general complaint that California wines are too strong and lack refreshing qualities." H e blamed this also on the demands of New York wine merchants for wines of "heavy body, high color, and strength." This certainly is an indictment of the wine trade of 1894 because such wines could be, and probably were, "stretched. " He thought that wines of 8-9 percent might be popular, as German wines were: "Light white wines and clarets, with not exceeding 9 percent alcohol, are



1.

AMERINE


13

greatly needed." This was almost 100 years ahead of its time. The early and excessive ripening of grapes in the warmer regions of California again was noted. As to California practices in 1894, Wetmore admits that there was bad management in the cellars during the spring and summer. (Again he blamed the wine merchants for delaying their selection of wines for shipment.) Spoilage occurred during aging in warm cellars because of secondary fermentation "to reduce sugar that has not fermented." Wetmore particularly criticized the storage of dry table wines in dry, warm cellars. Lacking such storage, he favored early bottling: "The sooner it is in the bottle after it is ready, the better. " H e favored not crushing (but noted that most producers used crushers), separation of the wine from the skins, use of "oeno-tannin," anaerobic conditions, complete and early racking, and storage in cool, unventilated, moist, dark cellars. To secure lower alcohol, he believed the vine training system might be changed (to give larger crops?) and "by reducing the must with water" (now prohibited in California.) He reported red wine fermentations in the skins of five to eight days "until fermentation is completed. " He noted that the price of grapes depended on sugar content and that growers of ordinary varieties of high yield (10 tons) got almost as much per ton as growers of quality varieties growing on hillsides with low yield (2-4 tons): $10.00 versus $12.00 per ton. The development of an oxidized odor i n white table wines was common. However, those who burnt sulfur freely in their casks (to produce S0 ) had no trouble. F i l m yeast growth on dry white wines was also a problem, indicating poor cellar practice. The baking of wine to produce sherry was practiced already in California in 1884—in "sherry houses." About the same time as Wetmore's report, two competent judges evaluated the California wines submitted to the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago (9, 10). Dubois thought the wines had been handled poorly (standing too long upright in the cases). H e also found that a number of the wines could have been improved by judicious blending. Specifically, he recommended Merlot and Malbec with Cabernet Sauvignon and Sauvignon vert with Sémillon. Oldham's report is especially interesting as he was an English wine merchant and had been familiar with California wine "for some years now. " In later years, his firm imported large amounts of California wines. H e noted that some white wines were fermented on the skins too long and others were left in the wood too long, or both. O n the other hand, he criticized some of the reds for "having been kept in large vats in a hot, uneven temperature." Standards of fill were not always up to his standards (excess air space between the wine and the cork). Some wines did not conform to type as much as he would like. His specific comments on the wines were to the point and often very laudatory. The Stanford Angelica of 1892 from the Vina vineyard was "very good indeed; by far the best exhibited." But the ports and sherries 2



14


were generally poor, he said. Finally, he was enthusiastic about the future of California, which is "rapidly taking its place as one of the principal wineproducing countries of the world." A number of imposing wineries were constructed in the state before Prohibition, particularly in the northern part of the state. See Figure 7. However, the economics of the wine industry were so precarious that in 1894 (partially because of the national economic depression), seven of the leading wine firms organized the California Wine Association to stabilize wine prices. As Peninou and Greenleaf (3) state, "From that time on until the coming of Prohibition, the history of winemaking in California is largely the history of the California Wine Association." The California Wine Association stabilized prices, instituted evaluation of wines as part of wine purchases, established brands by a well-conceived blending program, and instituted chemical control of all of their wines. There were still several important independent wine producers and merchants but the technological and financial skills of the California Wine Association prevailed. One of their most important contributions was the Winehaven Winery in Richmond. This 12-million-gallon winery provided cool storage

Wine Institute

Figure 7. Old stone winery in the Napa Valley



1.

AMERINE


15

and blending facilities and, after 1911, also made some wine. By 1918, the California Wine Association controlled directly or indirectly 84 percent of the wine produced in the state, according to Peninou and Greenleaf (3). Lachman. The description of winemaking in California at the turn of the century by Henry Lachman (II) is definitive. Lachman was the chief enologist of the the California Wine Association. He notes that until at least 1870, the California wine industry was limited in its ability to produce fine wine by the lack of good wine grape varieties. The Mission grape, he noted, produced "fine sweet wine, but poor red wine, the chief objections being its strong tannin and earthy taste, due not so much to the ground as to its not being suited for light, dry wines." Lachman considered that the most rapid progress in improving California wines came in the 1890s when many plantings of new varieties became available, and winemaking was "conducted on more scientific lines." H e also noted the deleterious effects of the phylloxera invasion of California (rampant in the 1880s and 1890s). In retrospect, this may have been a blessing, as the new vineyards planted on resistant stocks often were grafted to better varieties than the original vines. Harvesting was, of course, all by hand, by itinerant workers, paid piece work and earning $1.50-$2.00 per day (of which 50 cents had to be paid for meals). The price paid was adjusted according to the amount of crop. Harvesting started in Fresno by August 15 and continued to October 20. Time of harvest was regulated by field sampling. The minimum sugar desired in this area was 24° Brix (then called Balling). The grapes were picked into boxes and transported to the nearby winery. Some grapes were dumped into railway gravel cars. H e notes that " s h o u l d it take longer, and the grapes arrive in a damaged condition, they can only be used for brandy making." In the cooler coast areas, the vintage started between September 5 and 10 and continued until mid October. It is of interest to note, "There is very seldom any crushing done in November in the dry-wine districts, excepting possibly some second-crop grapes or Mission varieties. The list of varieties grown in the state at that time and their use and yield is interesting. The original spelling of Lachman is given but modern nomenclature, when different, is given in parenthesis. Sweet-Wine Grapes: Trousseau, Sultana, Palamino (Palomino), Thomsons Seedling (Thompson Seedless), Muscat of Alexandria, Sweet Water (Chasselas doré), Feher Szagas, Malaga, and E m peror were grown chiefly on flat land (in the Central Valley) and yielded 6-10 tons to the acre. Dry-wine varieties grown in sweet-wine districts and used in the manufacture of sweet wines: Zinfandel, Mataro, Carignan (Carignane), and Burger had yields of 6-10 tons per acre.


16


Dry-Wine Grapes (red): Zinfandel, Mataro, Grenache, and Charbono produced 4-6 tons in the valley, 2-4 tons on the hills (presumably in the Coastal Valleys and on the slopes of their hills). Cabernet Franc (Cabernet franc), Cabernet Sauvignon, Beclan, Merlot, Gamay, Alicante Bouschet, and Petite Bouschet had yields of 2-3 tons per acre in the valleys, 1-2 tons per acre on the hills. Petite Sirrah (Petite Sirah), Verdot, San Macaire (St. Macaire), Mondeuse, Muenier (Meunier), Barbera, Tenat (Tannat ?), and Chauché noir yielded 3-5 tons in the valleys, 2-3 /2 tons on the hills.


1

Dry-Wine Grapes (white): Golden Chasselas (Palomino), Gutedel (Chasselas doré), Johannisberg Riesling (White Riesling), Franken Riesling (Sylvaner), Gray Riesling (Grey Riesling), Traminer, and Sauvignon Vert (Sauvignon vert) had yields of 4 tons per acre in the valley, 2Vè tons per acre on the hills. Sauvignon Blanc (Sauvignon blanc), Semillon (Sémillon), and Muscat de Bordelais produced &-3V2 tons in the valley, 1V2-2 tons on the hills. Folle Blanche and Colombar (French Colombard) gave yields of 4 tons in the valley, 2 tons on the hills. With Burgers (Burger), Verdal, and Green Hungarian, the yield was 8-12 tons in the valleys, 5-8 tons on the hills. Red Grapes (used for white wines): Mission, Malvoise (Malvoisie), and Black Pinot produced 4-6 tons per acre in the valley, 3-4 tons on the hills. Table Grapes (used in winemaking): Rose of Peru, Black Hamburg, Cornichon, Tokay, and Emperor gave yields of 4-6 tons per acre in the valley (in the Central Valley), 3-4 tons per acre on the hills (presumably in the Sierra Nevada foothills). The crushers were generally located above the fermenting tanks. Roller crushers followed by a stemmer was the usual practice. "As a rule grapes are fermented without the stems in California. " The exception noted was when the stems were dry and were then allowed "to pass into the fermenting tanks, so that tannin can be drawn from the stems. " This was probably only for red wines. Daily sugar and temperature readings were made. For red wines, the fermentation lasted 5-7 days and the wine was drawn off the pomace essentially "dry. " If raisins or half-dried grapes are present, the fermentation ceased with 1-4 percent residual sugar and lactic bacterial spoilage ensued. Such wine should be distilled, he recommended. H e added that if blended with other sound wine, it will contaminate that wine as well. The late Edmund Henri Twight, who worked for the California Wine Association in the late 1890s, told the writer (about 1936) that he recalled huge amounts of sweet-sour wine in California at that time—perhaps 20 percent, he estimated. There is considerable other evidence that incomplete (stuck) fermentations and unsound faulty wines were common in the early 1900s. This



1.

AMERINE


17

is verified by a letter of 1898 from Frederick T. Bioletti (12) of the Berkeley staff of the University to a Fresno winemaker (sic), as follows: "Dear Sir: Your favor of Sept. 15 to Prof. Hilgard has been handed to me for reply. M r . Colby and I have examined the wine and find that it contains 13% of alcohol and 3.3% of solid contents which is perfectly normal for a natural wine. "It certainly has a peculiar taste, in fact, many peculiar tastes. These tastes are, however, all perfectly easy to produce from good grapes by appropriate methods, such as dirty vats and shoots, hot fermentation, and the use of old and imperfectly cleaned vats and casks that have contained port. Just how this wine was made of course I cannot say, though I can guess, but it is not necessary to look for any chemical fabrication, for the ordinary methods of producing dry red wine in California are quite sufficient to account for all the Off ' flavors imaginable." Lachman emphasized the care of the wines. He recommended weekly examination, storage of whites at 10°-15.6° C , and reds at 15.6°-21° C . By cleanliness he meant "scrupulously clean": scrubbing with a brush, use of soda and hot water, etc. Sulfuring (adding S0 ) was recommended. He also recommended that the same kind of wine be kept in the same tanks. Lachman would limit the fermentors to 5000 gallons, wisely we think because of the lack of cooling facilities. Production of piquette (pomace wine for distilling) is described. It should have at least 5-7 percent alcohol. Extraction with water passed from the bottom of one tank to the top of the next was used. The washed pomace was still worth $0.75-$l. 25 per ton for cream of tartar production. For white wine production, the grapes usually were not stemmed. The crushed grapes were left for six to ten hours before the free-run (separated) juice was drawn off. The pomace was then pressed and the pressed pomace was washed as with red pomace. The fermentation of white musts was done in 2/3-full oak casks. The fermentation was watched daily. The yeast foam was removed. By the sixth day, the fermentation had slowed down sufficiently to then use a fermenting bung. "The Italians often use a bag of sand, which they place over the bung-hole. " He recommended fermenting room temperatures of 21°-27° C and cellar temperatures of 15.6°-21° C , preferring 15.6° C after the first year. Six to ten weeks after the wine was made, it was separated from the sediment (racked). A further racking occurred between February and October, with another in August or September. H e preferred to store old wines in separate areas from new wines. Wine storage was often in tanks, 5000-50,000 gallons the first year. In smaller wineries, 2000-3000-gallon containers were used. The wines were evaluated and blended at the time of the second racking. Blending often was done by wine merchants in or near San Francisco. For export, he noted that a "burgundy" type was blended for England, a "Bordeaux" type for China and Japan, a "vin ordinaire" for New 2



18


Orleans, and "Burgundy" light clarets and strong astringent wines (for the Italians) for New York. After blending, the wines were filtered and stored in KXXMOOO-gallon casks (ovals). To clarify (fine) wines, gelatin, white of eggs, and Russian isinglass were used. Curiously, it is recommended that the casks must be filled daily during fining. The fining agents were left in the wine for twenty to thirty days. Wines that did not clarify were re-fined. With gelatin, at least, this was a dangerous practice. Too much filtration was abjured because it "flattens and injures the flavor." Lachmans recommendations for the chemical composition of blended wines are most interesting. Sweet (dessert) wines should contain about 0.052 g/100 m L of volatile acidity (as acetic) and not used if 0.100 g/mL or over. The total acidity of sherry wines "should not go over 0.50 g/mL free acid." The meaning of this requirement is not clear. Clarets for export "should not exceed 0.12 g/mL volatile acid; at 0.14 g/mL they are considered doubtful, and at 0.16 g/mL they are condemned." These limits are higher than would be tolerated currently (practically or legally). The ethanol content of California red wines was 12.25 percent and of white wines 11.5 percent, but some Burgers and Green Hungarians ran as low as 10 percent (overcropping?) and sauterne types were 13-14.5 percent. Lachman's recommendations for wines for the market still stand: "Wines should never be put on the market unless they are perfectly clear; that is, they should hold clear and show brilliant before a candle. " His recommendation that wines be aged at least eighteen months before bottling simply reflect the inadequacy of the clarification and filtration procedures of his time. O n sensory examination of wines, Lachman was a master. H e abhorred still wines of excess carbon dioxide. H e writes of "first, second, and third tastes. " (But some of these are surely odors, not tastes. ) Blending is considered the most difficult branch of the handling of wines. It should, he says, be assisted by chemical analysis. The judge must be in condition. H e should be able "to detect any blemish, and tell whether a wine has been corrected by use of lime, chalk, or salt. " This tells us a good deal about the poor quality of wines of the period, as does Bioletti's letter (12). Lachman was far in advance of his time in recommending bottling as the primary means of distributing wines. H e recommended bottling reds after three years of aging in the wood and whites after four. For white wines, this is far longer than modern practice would sanction. H e was again in advance of his time in recommending test bottling: exposing the bottled wine to heat, light, and a draft for a week or ten days. As to regional differences, Lachman was familiar with the lighter wines produced in the cooler coastal valleys compared with the heavier wines produced in the warmer interior valley. H e believed wines grown in hilly or mountainous country gave higher flavors. H e also found the wines of the Livermore Valley to "have a different characteristic altogether from the white



1.

AMERINE


19

wines from our other dry wine districts. " Aiso, the red wines from Livermore grapes were "a different type of red wine from those produced in other districts. " Amerine (13) agrees with this, particularly for Cabernet Sauvignon. For California port, practice favored fortifying to 20 percent ethanol with only 6-10 percent sugar, which is lower than now practiced. H e also recommended fortifying to 22 percent if the wines were to be held more than three years. For sherry, he recommended fortifying to 20-21 percent at 4 percent sugar. Aging in 50-100-gallon wood cooperage in a shed exposed to morning sun and heated at night to hold at 60° C was recommended. Steamor hot-air-heated rooms also were used. After heating, the wines were aged five to ten years. At that time, "California is more backward in sherry types than any other types produced in the state, on account of not allowing them sufficient time to develop flavor." The observation might still be made eighty years later. Malaga-type wine was made by adding boiled-down must, baking in the sun, or heating. Tokay types were made from grapes of high sugar content (shriveled or raisined). The California tokay thus appears as a dessert type in contrast to the Hungarian wine called tokay (or tokaj), which is a low-alcohol (usually below 14 percent) type, though it is often sweet. On sparkling wines, he was less sanguine. H e estimated that over one million dollars had been lost in experimenting. H e blamed the failure on using too high alcohol wines in the cuvée. Labor costs were comparatively low: $2.00 per day for the average cellar man, $3.00 for experienced help and $100.00 per month for superintendents or winemakers. His essay ended on an optimistic note if California producers replanted their vineyards with better varieties and classified their wines according to their virtues. Not a word about Prohibition, which was less than two decades away. In fact, the California industry proceeded blithely along from 1900 to 1918. Not until Prohibition was imminent did wineries bottle wines and try to sell them at whatever price they could get. There are some progressive developments in the early 1900s, which unfortunately passed largely unused. Bioletti (14-19) had noted difficulties of winemaking in hot climates. His bulletins and articles were written clearly and proposed cooling and rational use of sulfur dioxide. Bioletti and Cruess (20) and Cruess (21) did both laboratory and plant experiments that clearly showed the advantages of the rational use of sulfur dioxide in winemaking. The other was Jordan's (22) book on settling, use of pure yeast cultures, cooling, and pasteurization. Jordan was far in advance of his time in these practices, particularly cooling. It is significant that the objective of his experiments was to prevent incomplete fermentations, the bane of the California wine industry at this period. The significance of his book is that he described experiments made over several years in the Repsold winery at Napa. As further evidence of the success of his experiments were the quality of his wines that survived Prohibition.



20


It is of interest to note the amount of hand labor required in preProhibition wineries. Crushers often were placed at the highest point in the winery, the fermentors were on the top floor, and storage tanks were on lower floors. It was not until the 1890s that machine-operated pumps and filters were used commonly. Grapes, of course, were still delivered in boxes and unloaded by hand and the pomace was removed from the fermentors by hand labor, in a few cases until recently. The Prohibition period, 1919-1933, was a great one for California grape growers and a disastrous one for the wineries. Only a few wineries kept their basic permit and produced sacramental or medicinal wines. The rest were dismantled or kept closed with some minimum attempt to maintain the cooperage and equipment. The grape growers profited from a huge increase in shipment of red wine grapes to local and eastern markets for the home production of wine (which was legal up to 200 gallons). There was also an increasing market for raisins and for table grapes. Prices in the early 1920s were higher than at any previous time. The demand for red grapes was for those of good shipping quality (thick skins) and high color. Thus, the finer quality (for wine) varieties were grafted to such varieties as Alicante Bouschet, Carignane, Mataro, Grand Noir, Petite Sirah, Zinfandel, Malvoisie, etc. These had high yields, some had a fine color, and all could stand up to the 3000-mile, seven-tofourteen-day trip to New York or Boston. By 1929, Shear (see Amerine and Joslyn, 23) estimated that home wine production had reached 90 million gallons. Thus, during Prohibition, the acreage of fine wine-grape varieties decreased sharply (particularly whites) and table-grape and raisin-grape acreages increased. Prices decreased sharply in the mid 1920s and stayed depressed until World War II. 1933 to I960 Getting the new wine industry started was a major task. Besides lack of suitable varieties of wine grapes, there were few trained winemakers, little usable equipment, dried-out and leaky containers, little aged wine, and no distribution channels. The equipment deficiency was largely made up by building the new wineries with concrete fermentors and storage tanks of large size: 25,000-100,000 gallons. Concrete containers were inexpensive and easy to install. The first crusher-stemmers were largely modifications of the old Garolla type. They were made of iron and could handle 50-100 tons per hour. Excess iron pickup was a major problem until stainless steel was introduced after World War II. The biggest change after Repeal was the huge demand for fortified dessert wines: angelica, muscatel, port, sherry, and white port. Prior to



1.

AMERINE


21

World War II, 75-80 percent of California wine production was of these types. These wines were sold at very low prices, 50-75 cents per bottle. These low prices had a number of unfortunate effects on the California grape and wine industries. Low prices for wine meant low prices for grapes—so low that surplus table and raisin grapes of lower quality and cost were used widely. The low prices also limited quality. Dessert wines were processed rapidly and seldom aged. At such low profit levels, the larger wineries had an economic advantage so that the number of bonded-wine premises in California dropped from 804 in 1934 to 249 in 1960 and 212 in 1965. But by 1977, it had risen to 373. The number of very large wineries (over 9 million gallons) increased from 9 in 1941 to 36 in 1977. There has been a significant increase in the number of small wineries in recent years, as Table I illustrates. The dominance of low price dessert wines reduced interest in better grape varieties, improved grape and wine production practices, and properly timed harvesting. The evidence of the turbulent conditions in the industry in this period was the surpluses of low quality wine that developed. Perhaps the most significant effort to solve this problem was the 1938 program to distill surplus wine as it was made and secure loans on the high-proof spirits and brandy this produced. There were other programs to stabilize the industry even up to 1960. Table I. Frequency Distribution of Size of California Bonded Winery Premises: December 31, 1941, 1965, and 1977 Number of Wineries

Percentage Percentage Change Change Storage Capacity" (gallons) 1941 1947 1965 1977 from 1947 from 1965 Less than 10,000 10,000-25,000 25,000-50,000 50,000-100,000 100,000-250,000 250,000-500,000 500,000-1,000,000 1,000,000-2,000,000 2,000,000-5,000,000 Over 5,000,000 Total

201 22 28 28 54 28 20 31 22 9

87 32 32 30 59 43 25 28 33 14

443

383

17 13 20 21 27 23 18 25 30 18

b

115 34 32 30 39 19 18 21 29 36 c

212 373

+ +

32.2 6.3 0.0 0.0 - 33.9 — 55.8 — 28.0 — 25.0 — 12.1 + 157.1 —

2.7

+ + + +

576.5 161.5 60.0 42.9 + 44.4 - 17.4 0.0 16.0 — 3.3 100.0 +

-

+

43.6

? Including fermenters usable as storage as of December 31. Of 18 wineries with storage capacity in 1965 of over 5,000,000,11 had 5,000,000-10,000,000 and 7 had over 10,000,000. Of 36 wineries with storage capacity in 1977 of over 5,000,000, 16 had 5,000,000-10,000,000 and 20 had over 10,000,000. b

c

Source: Compiled by Wine Institute, San Francisco, from unpublished detailed reports.



22


The production of cheap dessert wines during the depression years also had another unfortunate result: dessert wines were the cheapest source of alcohol. The skid-row alcoholic used wine as his source of alcohol and became known as a "wino." The high production of dessert wines and brandies required large quantities of high-proof spirits and brandy. The disposal of huge quantities of distillery slops with their high B O D created major problems: killing fish in rivers, malodors from ponding, overloading of commercial sewage disposal systems because of its seasonal character, and possible contamination of underground water supplies. The increasing size of California wineries has increased the problem of winery waste disposal. Food and Drug agencies, state and federal, even before World War II began efforts to improve the sanitation practices of the industry. From 1958, the Wine Institute employed a sanitation expert. A sanitation handbook that gave detailed instructions on improving winery practices was published and has been kept up to date. The University of California was called upon for teaching, extension, and research for the new industry. The initial teaching responsibility fell largely on Professor W i l l i a m V . Cruess and his colleagues on the Berkeley campus. They not only developed university-caliber courses, but taught special practical courses. Both at Berkeley and Davis (Professor A. J. Winkler and his colleagues) extensive research programs began and extension work was done through direct contact with wineries, regional meetings, and several statewide conferences. The research was varied: microbiological, biochemical, chemical engineering (distillation), nutritional, and economic (largely by the Giannini Foundation for Agricultural Economics on the Berkeley campus). The results of these studies were the identification and development of control measures for bacterial and yeast disorders, better fining agents, more rational distillation procedures, temperature control (23, 24), flor and submerged culture sherries, better laboratory procedures, climatic zones, varietal recommendations, more rational sensory evaluation procedures, information on the role and mechanism of the malo-lactic fermentation, wine-cooling data and statistical data upon which economic control measures were based (23,25,26), and new varieties and viticultural practices. The Wine Institute, a nonprofit trade organization, was established in San Francisco in 1934. It soon became the authoritative voice of the California wine industry. It was especially effective in numerous legislative and regulatory affairs, not only in California but elsewhere. It collected statistical information and worked on economic measures to stabilize the industry. One of the extension activities of importance was the regular meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee of the Wine Institute from 1942 to 1973, at which much of the University and other research was first presented. These meetings also provided a mechanism for exchange of ideas for winemakers on a personal basis.



f

83.2 80.5 77.1 73.8 71.2 70.6

Percent of Total 2

17,300 21,184 26,351 33,967 48,370 46,330

1000 wine gallons

Total 3

12.6 13.8 15.0 16.4 15.1 11.5

Percent of Total 4

17

Other States

131,757 144,951 161,168 186,599 277,289 331,848

1000 wine gallons 95.8 94.3 92.1 90.3 86.3 82.0

Percent of Total 6

c

United States Total 5

United States Produced Wine

5834 8821 13,836 20,108 44,017 72,737

1000 wine gallons

Total 7

137,591 153,772 175,006 206,707 321,300 404,584

1000 wine gallons

Total All Wine 9

Sources: Figures prior to 1965 compiled by Ciannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics from issues of Wine Institutes' Annual Wine Industry Statistical Survey, Part IV. Figures beginning in 1965 compiled by Wine Institute from reports of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, U.S. Treasury Department, and Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.

b

4.2 5.7 7.9 9.7 13.7 18.0

Percent of Total 8

Foreiç. in Wine^

? California wine excludes small quantity of California wine exported. Total U.S. less Total California. ^Tax-paid withdrawals. Imports for consumption. 5 Prior to 1965, figures are on crop year basis, beginning July 1 of year specified, and including June 30 in following year. * Preliminary figures for 1979.

114,457 123,767 134,817 152,632 228,919 285,518

Averages 1950-1954 1955-1959 1960-1964 1965-1969 1970-1974 1975-1979

e

1000 wine gallons

Year beginning July I

Total 1

California*

1

Table II. Commercially Produced Still and Sparkling Wine Entering Distribution Channels In The United States, By O r i g i n , 1965-1979



68/392 101,204 121,314 137,651 153,771 175,004 206,707 321,300 404,584

867 1185 1674 1935 3260 5365 11,303 21,808 23,992

2

1

49,445 67,525 100,019 119,640 135,716 150,511 169,639 195,505 299,492 380,592

4

0

19,196 45,399 67,196 89,584 96,986 103,861 106,806 103,614 92,309 77,699

1000 wine gallons

3

h

Total

Dessert, over 14 Percent Alcohol

30,247 22,126 32,823 30,056 38,730 46,650 62,833 91,891 207,183 302,892

5

d

Withdrawals

Table, not over 14 Percent Alcohol

Tax-paid

Sources: Figures prior to 1965 compiled by S. W. Shear, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics from reports of Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Treasury Department, and Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Figures beginning in 1965 compiled by Wine Institute from reports of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, U.S. Treasury Department, and Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.

b

? Column 2 plus Column 3; totals differ slightly because of rounding. Column 4 plus Column 5; totals differ slightly because of rounding. °, Dessert includes vermouth and other special natural (flavored) wine over 14 percent alcohol. Prior to 1965, dessert wine also includes sake imports. Table includes other special natural (flavored) wine not over 14 percent alcohol. Beginning in 1965, table wine also includes sake imports. ~ Prior to 1965, figures are on crop year basis beginning July 1 of year specified and ending June 30 in following year. J The very small consumption of sparkling wine is included in still wine totals 1909-1913. β Preliminary figures for 1979.

Averages 1909-1913 1935-1939 1940-1944 1945-1949 1950-1954 1955-1959 1960-1964 1965-1969 1970-1974 1975-19798

e

Years beginning July I

Sparkling Wine

Total, Still and Sparkling?

Still Wine, Commercial,

Table III. Apparent Consumption of Commercial Still and Sparkling Wines in the United States: Tax-Paid Withdrawals of United States and Imported Commercial Still and Sparkling Wines, 1909-1974



1.

AMERINE


25

In 1938, the Wine Advisory Board was organized under the Department of Agriculture of the State of California. It collected a small tax on each gallon of California wine sold and from these funds supported public relations, advertising, and research for the industry. The research covered a wide field from viticultural and enological research, largely at the University of California, to more than 100 research projects on the possible health values of wine. The Wine Advisory Board was abolished in 1975 and its functions were assumed largely by the Wine Institute. The American Society of Enologists was organized in 1950 and continues to function. This provided an annual meeting for presentation of research papers and for publication of the papers presented (at first through a Proceedings and since 1951 by the American Journal ofEnology and Viticulture). The more formal results of the University as well as industry and other research work were published here. The abstract section of this journal proved helpful to the industry in recording and evaluating new publications on enology and viticulture. Finally, following Repeal, the University personnel published numerous bulletins, circulars, and books on grape and wine production, incorporating the results of their own and other research and the best industry practices of the time. These publications were of great value not only to grape growers and winemakers but also to students at the University of California and elsewhere. They established the reputation of the University of California as one of the most important centers of research in enology and viticulture in the world. Production of wine increased rapidly after Repeal, as Table II illustrates. Note the increasing percentage of imported wine and the preponderance of California wine. The distribution of wine by types is given in Table III. Table IV. Indexes of Wholesale Prices For California Wine, 1947-1979

a

Calendar Year Averages 1947-1949 1950-1954 1955-1959 1960-1964 1965-1969 1970-1974 1975-1979&

Red Table and Dessert Red Table Dessert 1 2 3 Percentage of 1957-1959 as 100 b

95.9 79.6 86.2 95.9 101.1 126.1 163.9

76.5 74.1 83.7 95.0 101.1 127.6 170.1

103.7 82.3 87.1 96.5 101.1 125.2 162.5

Based on prices f.o.b. California Winery, in cases of twelve fifths or equivalent. Preliminary figures for 1979.


26

WINE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES


The changes in indexes of wholesale prices for California wine are given in Table IV. With increasing production and profits, many new wineries were constructed in architecturally pleasing styles. See Figures 8 and 9.

E. & J. Gao l Figure 8. Headquarters of large California winery

Sterling Vn ieyards Figure 9. New winery in the Napa Valley Literature Cited 1. Adams, L. "The Wines of America," 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA, 1978. 2. Wagner, P.M. "Grapes Into Wine. A Guide to Winemaking;" Knopf: New York, 1976. In Wine Production Technology in the United States; Amerine, M.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1981.


1. AMERINE American Wine Industry to 1960

27

3. Peninou, E.; Greenleaf, S. "Winemaking in California;" Peregrine Press: San Francisco,ĊA,1954. 4. Carosso, V.P. "The California Wine Industry, 1830-1895: A Study of the Forma tive Years;" Univ. of California Press: Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1951. 5. U.S. Tariff Commission. "Grapes, Raisins and Wine," U.S. Tariff Comm. Rep 1939, 134, 1-408. 6. Haraszthy, A. "Wine-making in California;" The Book Club of California: San Francisco, CA, 1978. 7. Amerine, M.A. "Hilgard and California Viticulture," Hilgardia 1962, 33, 1-23. 8. Wetmore, C.A. "Treatise Concerning the Principles Governing the Production of Distinct Types of Wine in Europe and California," Part I of Appendix B, Report of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners for 1893-94; A.J. Johnston, Supt. State Printing; Sacramento, CA, 1894, pp. 5-42. 9. Dubois, E. "Report on California Wines and Brandies," Part I of Appendix B, Report of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners for 1893-94; A. J. Johnston, Supt. State Printing; Sacramento, CA, 1894, pp. 44-45. 10. Oldham, C.F."Reporton California Wines and Brandies Exhibited at the World's Columbian Exposition, Chicago, U.S.A, 1893," Part I of Appendix B, Report of the Board of State Viticultural Commissioners for 1893-94; A. J. Johnston, Supt. State Printing; Sacramento, CA, 1894, pp. 50-58. 11. Lachman, H. "The Manufacture of Wines in California," U.S.D.A. Bur. Chem. Bull. 1903, 72, 25-40. 12. Bioletti, F.T. Univ. of California Archives, Berkeley, CA, personal communica tion. 13. Amerine, M.A. "The Anatomy of a Superb Wine," San Francisco 1964, 6(13), 28-29. 14. Bioletti, F.T. "The Manufacture of Dry Wines in Hot Countries," Calif., Agric. Exp. Stn.Bull.1905, 167, 1-66. 15. Bioletti, F.T. "A New Wine-Cooling Machine," Calif., Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1906, 174, 1-27. 16. Bioletti, F.T. "A New Method of Making Dry Red Wine," Calif., Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1906, 177, 1-36. 17. Bioletti, F.T. "Sulfurous Acid in Wine Making," Eighth Intern. Cong. Appl. Chem. 1912, 14, 31-59. 18. Bioletti, F.T. "Winery Directions," Calif., Agric. Exp. Stn., Cir. 1914, 119, 1-8. 19. Bioletti, F.T. "The Wine-Making Industry of California," Intern. Inst. Agr., Agr. IntelligencePlantDis. Mon. Bull. 1915, 6(2), 1-13. 20. Bioletti, F.T.; Cruess, W.V. "Enological Investigations," Calif., Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1912, 230, 1-118. 21. Cruess, W.V. "The Effect of Sulfurous Acid on Fermentation Organisms,"J.Ind. Eng. Chem. 1911, 4, 581-585. 22. Jordan, R. "Quality in Dry Wines Through Adequate Fermentations, by Means Defecation, Aeration, Pure Yeast, Cooling and Heating;" Pernau: San Francisco, CA, 1911. 23. Amerine, M.A.; Joslyn, M.A. "Table Wines: Technology of Their Production," 2nd ed.; Univ. of California Press: Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1972. 24. Cruess, W.V. "Fermentation of Wines at Lower Temperatures," Wines Vines 1948, 29(9), 19-21. (See also Wine Technol. Conf., University of California, Co. Agr., Davis, CA, Aug. 1948, pp. 90-97.)

25. Cruess, W.V. "The Principles and Practice of Wine Making," 2nd ed.; Avi: New York, 1947. 26. Amerine, M.A.; Berg, H.W.; Kunkee, R.E.; Ough, C.S.; Singleton, V.L.; Webb, A.D. "The Technology of Wine Making," 4th ed.; Avi: Westport, CN, 1980. RECEIVED July 24, 1980.


Development of the American Wine Industry to 1960 - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents